Re: [PATCH] drm/amd/display: Fixed the unused-but-set-variable warning

From: Paul Menzel
Date: Fri Mar 18 2022 - 01:58:32 EST


Dear Aashish,


Am 17.03.22 um 15:01 schrieb Aashish Sharma:

Thank you for your patch. If you are going to send a v2, please use imperative mood. Maybe:

drm/amd/display: Fix unused-but-set-variable warning


Fixed this kernel test robot warning:

Maybe:

Fix the kernel test robot warning below:

drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dmub/inc/dmub_cmd.h:2893:12:
warning: variable 'temp' set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable]

Replaced the assignment to the unused temp variable with READ_ONCE()
macro to flush the writes.

Replace …

Excuse my ignorance regarding `READ_ONCE()`, but is that the reason you remove the volatile qualifier?

Some robots ask in their report to add a Found-by tag. If so, please add one.

Signed-off-by: Aashish Sharma <shraash@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dmub/inc/dmub_cmd.h | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dmub/inc/dmub_cmd.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dmub/inc/dmub_cmd.h
index 873ecd04e01d..b7981a781701 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dmub/inc/dmub_cmd.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dmub/inc/dmub_cmd.h
@@ -2913,13 +2913,12 @@ static inline void dmub_rb_flush_pending(const struct dmub_rb *rb)
uint32_t wptr = rb->wrpt;
while (rptr != wptr) {
- uint64_t volatile *data = (uint64_t volatile *)((uint8_t *)(rb->base_address) + rptr);
+ uint64_t *data = (uint64_t volatile *)((uint8_t *)(rb->base_address) + rptr);
//uint64_t volatile *p = (uint64_t volatile *)data;
- uint64_t temp;
uint8_t i;
for (i = 0; i < DMUB_RB_CMD_SIZE / sizeof(uint64_t); i++)
- temp = *data++;
+ (void)READ_ONCE(*data++);

Did you verify, that the generated code is the same now, or what the differences are. If it’s different from before, you should document in the commit message, that it’s wanted, as otherwise, it’s an invasive change just to fix a warning.

rptr += DMUB_RB_CMD_SIZE;
if (rptr >= rb->capacity)


Kind regards,

Paul